Summary: Mr X complained the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) failed to oversee allegations against him properly. We did not uphold this complaint because the LADO followed the correct procedure. Mr X also complained the Council did not respond to his complaint. The LADO failed to refer Mr X to the Council’s complaints team which was fault causing Mr X avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and issue guidance to officers in the LADO team about identifying a complaint and signposting the person to the complaints team.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the LADO failed to oversee allegations against him with any thoroughness, failed to establish an accurate timeline or check available evidence and allowed inaccurate, false statements with exaggerated facts. He said this has caused avoidable distress and a loss of employment.
2. Mr X also complained the LADO responded to his complaint and did not answer it fully.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. We decided the Council had been given an opportunity to respond to Mr X’s complaint when he emailed the LADO in December 2024 (see later in this statement) and so we decided to investigate.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

10. Councils must appoint a designated officer (LADO) to oversee investigations into allegations against people who work with children in their area. A referral must be made to the LADO within one working day in respect of all cases in which it is alleged a person who works with children has:
• behaved in a way that has harmed, or may have harmed a child;
• possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child; or
• behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children.

11. The LADO is responsible for:
• Providing advice to employers.
• Managing and overseeing cases.
• Ensuring the child’s voice is heard and that they are safeguarded.
• Ensuring there is a consistent, fair, independent and thorough process for all adults working with children and young people against whom an allegation is made.
• Monitoring the progress of cases to ensure they are dealt with as quickly as possible.

12. The Council’s policy and procedures are called ‘Managing Allegations or Serious Concerns in respect of any adult who works or volunteers with children. They say:
• The LADO is responsible for management and oversight of allegations. They provide advice and guidance to employers, liaise with the police and other agencies, monitor the progress of cases to ensure they are dealt with quickly and with a thorough and fair process and provide advice and guidance on making referrals to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
• The accused person should be treated fairly and honestly and helped to understand the concerns raised and processes involved. They should be kept informed of the progress and outcome of the investigation
• There is an Allegation Management Meeting (AMM) to plan enquiries, allocate tasks and set timescales.
• At the conclusion of an investigation, a Review AMM will take place to share information and determine one of five possible outcomes: substantiated, unsubstantiated, malicious, false or unfounded.
13. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice set out our expectations of councils providing services. We expect them to:
1. Act fairly and proportionately. This means clearly explaining the rationale for decisions and recording it.
2. Put things right. This includes operating an effective complaints procedure.

What happened

14. Mr X was employed in a role where he had contact with children and young people. The LADO received a referral from another local authority. The allegation was that Mr X’s daughter (Y) disclosed a historic assault by a friend of the family and Mr X did not report this to the school or police.
15. Mr X was suspended from his job and eventually dismissed. He is currently appealing his dismissal to the Employment Tribunal.
16. At the start of May 2024, there was an Initial AMM. In attendance were the LADO, the referring authority’s LADO, a member of staff from Mr X’s employer, Y’s social worker (from the referring authority) and a senior manager from Children’s Social Care. The minutes said a decision from the Police was needed before an internal investigation. The LADO was going to get an update from the Police and once this was received, an employer-led internal investigation would start.
17. At the start of June, there was a Review AMM. The minutes noted:
• The Police investigation was ongoing and the LADO had asked the Police to obtain statements as soon as possible as this was delaying the internal investigation. The internal investigation couldn’t start until the police said so.
• The Police had not confirmed if Mr X was being treated as a suspect.
18. In October, there was a Review AMM. This was attended by the LADO, the senior manager and a member of staff from Mr X’s employer. The minutes noted:
• The report from Children’s Social Care was not received because Mr X only provided extracts and refused to share the full report. The Police report was also not obtained, but Mr X indicated that no further action would be taken against him or his wife.
• The outcome was agreed by attendees as substantiated because Mr X failed to report an allegation about his daughter being the victim of an assault and had allowed the alleged perpetrator to visit the family home after the allegation. The employer’s disciplinary hearing found concerns about his judgement which could impact on his professional role. He was dismissed.
• Mr X would be referred to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
19. In November, Mr X contacted the LADO, having received the minutes of the AMM meetings after making a subject access request. In one of those emails in early December, Mr X refers to having made a formal complaint. But the Council told us it had not received a complaint from Mr X.
20. There was, however, an exchange of emails between the LADO. Mr X asked a series of questions and provided some information.
21. The LADO explained:
• Their role was not to conduct investigations. They had oversight of completed investigations.
• The LADO process concluded in October following the disciplinary and appeal.
• She would consider any details of alleged inaccuracies in statements if he provided details.
22. Mr X gave the LADO details of what he described as inaccurate information from the senior manager (one of the attendees at the AMMs) including:
• Y made an allegation of inappropriate touching by a friend which she said happened several years ago. Y said she did not want to tell the police or school
• He and his wife decided to discuss the allegation with the friend’s parents who said their child admitted to what happened
• He and his wife did not know about additional/new information Y gave to the safeguarding team and police which was different from what Y had told them (and was a more serious allegation). They were not given full details because Y was competent and it would affect the police investigation. They only found out in July when they got a copy of the social care report.
• He never allowed the friend to visit; he had no knowledge of the visit and was at work at the time the visit took place. This could be checked
• He did not minimise events. He didn’t have the same information as everyone else. The social worker’s and senior manager’s opinions were unbalanced
• His job only required occasional contact with children and he was overworked due to staff absence
• He denied blaming Y. He had only been asking her questions initially because they had little information.
23. The LADO emailed Mr X to say she had reviewed his information and there was nothing to change the position. She did not explain why.
24. Mr X sent a further email to the LADO saying there was evidence his wife had reported the allegation to Y’s school. He also said he had only had brief safeguarding training which did not address a complex case like this and his wife reporting the matter to the Head of Year was reasonable and appropriate. He went on to say Y had also said she didn’t want anyone notified and Y wasn’t in any danger as this was a historical incident. Mr X asked a series of questions which the LADO replied to saying:
• A school, unless it is the employer, would not be invited to meetings because of the sensitive nature of the information
• It was discussed at the first meeting that his role met the criteria for working in a position of trust with children as although he was mainly office based, there was potential to spend time with children
• She could not comment on the LADO process in relation to Mrs X (who worked in a different council’s area)
• The LADO doesn’t have direct contact with the person alleged responsible. That person’s manager is responsible for contact and updates
• He could have a copy of the final meeting minutes.
• It was the role of the investigating officer to establish a timeline and not the LADO. The LADO does not complete investigations.
25. The Council told us:
• It had not received a complaint from Mr X, but the LADO and Mr X had exchanged emails. The LADO did not refer Mr X to the complaints team as she believed she was responding to questions from him about her role.
• The police shared key information which was that no further action would be taken. Given their limited involvement, it was not necessary to request a separate report from the police
• The report from the other council’s children’s social care team was an assessment which included sensitive information about Mr X’s daughter and family including health and education which the LADO would not need to see to fulfil their function. The required information was the outcome of involvement. This information was shared by the allocated social worker at the Review AMM.

Was there fault?

The LADO failed to oversee allegations against him with any thoroughness, failed to establish an accurate timeline or check available evidence and allowed inaccurate, false statements with exaggerated facts.

26. The LADO is responsible for oversight of investigations into safeguarding allegations concerning those whose work brings them into contact with children. The role is to ensure there is a consistent, fair, independent and thorough process. The LADO process as set out in paragraph 12, does not prescribe exactly what evidence/information needs to be available and so this means there is flexibility and discretion. The process was followed in this case and so there is no fault.
27. When Mr X emailed the LADO with what he described as new evidence, the LADO considered it, gave a brief explanation and provided answers to his questions. This was proportionate and ensured the process was fair. Mr X does not agree with the outcome, but there was no fault in the process.

The LADO responded to Mr X’s complaint and did not answer it fully.

28. Mr X’s emails to the LADO contained a series of questions and a request to consider what he described as new information or evidence. The LADO responded to those questions. Once Mr X continued to express dissatisfaction and referred to an earlier email as a formal complaint, the LADO should have referred him to the Council’s complaints team. That way he would have got a complaint response from a council officer independent of and unconnected to the LADO decision-making process.
29. The failure to identify Mr X’s continued emails as forming a complaint was not in line with our expectations as I have set out in paragraph 13(b) and was fault. It caused avoidable frustration and confusion.

Back to top

Agreed Action

30. To remedy Mr X’s avoidable distress and minimise the chance of recurrence, within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Issue an apology to Mr X. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Issue a briefing note to staff in the LADO team with advice on when it is appropriate to signpost people who have been subject to the LADO process to the formal complaints process
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman